Guía de Entrevista

The purpose of this study was to examine whether there was a relationship between traditional undergraduate students and non-traditional undergraduate students and self-reported instances of intentional and unintentional plagiarism. The participants of the study were randomly selected undergraduates over the age of 18 from a large public university located in a southeastern state of the United States. The study used a survey to collect data on student enrollment characteristics and reported instances of plagiarism. The data were then entered into SPSS software and t-tests were used to analyze the results in an effort to observe any

relationship. It was hypothesized that there would be a statistically significant difference between self-reported instances of intentional plagiarism between traditional undergraduate students and non-traditional undergraduate students. It was also hypothesized that there would be a statistically significant difference between self-reported instances of unintentional

plagiarism between traditional undergraduate students and non-traditional undergraduate students. The results of this research showed no statistically significant relationship between student enrollment as traditional or non-traditional undergraduate students and self-reported instances of intentional or unintentional plagiarism. In both tests, the null hypothesis failed to be rejected. However, failing to reject the null hypothesis does not mean acceptance of the null hypothesis. Looking at the results, there was little difference in the means between self-reported instances of intentional plagiarism between traditional and non-traditional undergraduate

students. There was also little difference in the means between self-reported instances of unintentional plagiarism between traditional and non-traditional undergraduate students. However, the results did implicate that unintentional plagiarism occurred 2.55 times as often as

intentional plagiarism with traditional undergraduate students and 2.5 times with non-traditional undergraduate students.

Previous research on academic dishonesty has shown that cheating in colleges and universities has been, and continues to be, a problem among students and a threat to the integrity of academia (Baker et al., 2008; Bowers, 1964; Bretag, 2015; Coleman & Atkinson, 2014; McCabe & Trevino, 1996; Whitley, 1998). Typically studied through self-reporting data, plagiarism by undergraduate college students has been measured at a rate as low as 19% to as high as 81% (Bretag, 2015). This research looked at a very specific type of academic

dishonesty, plagiarism, and broke it down into intentional plagiarism, or purposeful cheating, and unintentional plagiarism, or ignorance to the rules of effective research writing. This is a

different approach to measuring plagiarism as most of the literature does not address the intent of the act, but simply the act.

The survey developed for this research asked participants specific questions about instances involving plagiarism. The specific questions were designed to distinguish between instances of intentional plagiarism and unintentional plagiarism. At least some respondents reported having committed each type of plagiarism that has been identified for this research. When looking at instances of intentional plagiarism, almost 1% of respondents admitted to having purchased a paper from a “term paper mill”. This is similar to the results where 1.4% of respondents reported purchasing a paper from an Internet source. Almost 1.5% of respondents had another student write a paper for them. Half of 1% of respondents admitted to submitting another person’s paper as their own. And, over 14% admitted to intentionally copying or paraphrasing material from an outside source without properly citing the source. This differs

than results found in the literature where only about 2.8% reported such an act (Dupree & Sattler, 2010).

There were far more occurrences of self-reported instances of unintentional plagiarism by the respondents of the study. Over 17% of respondents reported that they had copied or

paraphrased material without properly citing the information because they did not know it needed to be. Almost 10% of the respondents reported that they used direct quotes from other sources without using proper quotation marks. Almost 16% reported that they had used information from an outside source without citing the source because they did not think they needed to.

Interestingly, participants identifying as traditional undergraduate students reported more instances of plagiarism than non-traditional undergraduate students. There were far greater reports of unintentional plagiarism than intentional plagiarism. There was no statistically significant difference between traditional undergraduate students and non-traditional

undergraduate students and self-reported instances of plagiarism, but there was a significant difference between self-reported instances of unintentional plagiarism and intentional plagiarism regardless of enrollment status.

Conclusions

For this research, the focus was on plagiarism, more specifically, self-reported instances of intentional and unintentional plagiarism by undergraduate students identified as traditional or non-traditional as defined by the United States Department of Education (USDOE, 2002).

The National Center of Education (NCES, 2010) reported that between 1999 and 2009, the enrollment of non-traditional college students increased by 43%. In 2012, almost 75% of undergraduate students possessed at least one non-traditional characteristic (USDOE, 2015).

About 38% of the sample for this research was comprised of non-traditional undergraduate students. That is, of the 574 respondents to the survey, 220 of them possessed at least one non- traditional characteristic.

For the non-traditional undergraduate student, there is typically a gap in time between high school and college. In this study, 35.3% of respondents began their undergraduate

education in a different calendar year than graduating high school. In this case, the student may have forgotten some of the basic rules of appropriate referencing and citing of sources when conducting and presenting research. And, they find themselves less concerned with the

academic process and more concerned with learning the material. Their motivations for enrolling in college are geared more towards career change or advancements or higher pay in a career they already have (Adams & Corbett, 2010). These students are often seeking a more flexible

educational environment that will allow them the opportunity to attend school while balancing other lifestyle responsibilities (Adams & Corbett, 2010; Strage, 2008). In this study, 14% of respondents are part-time students and over 20% reported working over 35 hours per week at a job. These students are more likely to take classes in an online environment or through satellite campuses that better meet their needs for flexibility. As such, these students may not feel the same connection to their college or university as traditional students.

The primary findings of this research were not in the comparison between traditional and non-traditional students, but in the differences between self-reported instances of intentional and unintentional plagiarism. The research did not show a statistically significant difference in numbers of self-reported instances of plagiarism when comparing traditional undergraduate students and nontraditional undergraduate students. In fact, the differences in mean scores among traditional (M=.20) and non-traditional (M=.16) undergraduate students reporting

instances of intentional plagiarism were minimal. The same can be said when comparing mean scores of traditional (M=.51) and non-traditional (M=.40) undergraduate students reporting instances of unintentional plagiarism.

Faculty and administrators may be most interested in the findings related to the difference between intentional acts of plagiarism and unintentional acts of plagiarism. Undergraduate students, regardless of whether they were traditional or non-traditional students, were

approximately 2.5 times more likely to have committed unintentional plagiarism than intentional plagiarism. For traditional undergraduate students, the mean scores for self-reported instances of unintentional plagiarism (M=.51) was 2.55 times higher than the mean score for self-reported instances of intentional plagiarism (M=.20). Table 9 in Appendix E shows the results of the comparison of self-reported instances of intentional and unintentional plagiarism of traditional undergraduate students. For non-traditional undergraduate students, the mean scores for self- reported instances of unintentional plagiarism (M=.40) is 2.5 times higher than the mean scores for self-reported instances of intentional plagiarism (M=.16). Table 8 in Appendix E charts the results of the t-test of self-reported instances of intentional and unintentional plagiarism of non- traditional undergraduate students.

Implications

This study compared self-reported instances of of intentional and unintentional

plagiarism among traditional undergraduate students and non-traditional undergraduate students. These variables were examined to see if a relationship existed between specific types of

plagiarism and students displaying traditional and non-traditional characteristics.

The results of the study showed that there was no significant difference in the level of plagiarism between traditional and non-traditional undergraduate students. However, it did show

a difference in self-reported instances of intentional plagiarism and unintentional plagiarism. The results showed that the number of self-reported instances of unintentional plagiarism were reported 2.5 times greater than intentional plagiarism. That is, unintentional plagiarism occurred 71% more often than intentional plagiarism. This was consistent among traditional

undergraduate students and non-traditional undergraduate students.

These results become more important in the light of over 83% of the respondents reported that they received an explanation on the rules of plagiarism from their institution and over 86% of the respondents reported that they had signed an Honor Code with their institution. Table 5 in Appendix E displays students’ responses regarding their understanding of plagiarism and their signing of an Honor Code.

Although all forms of plagiarism are a problem, this research shows that unintentional plagiarism should be considered a greater problem, and one that could be prevented through more effective means of communicating the rules of plagiarism with the students. Such means could include changes to university policies to more effectively hold students accountable for understanding the rules of research and writing. This could also include incorporating more time and effort in first-year student development. Instead of assuming that students are taught about plagiarism in high school, colleges and universities can invest more instruction into students’ understanding of the expectations of post-secondary education. Colleges and universities could also address the concerns of unintentional plagiarism with the faculty. Plagiarism should not be just an issue for English and Composition instructors to address, but across all disciplines. Offering training and support to faculty can result in greater training and support for the students.

Limitations

The limitations of this research existed in the geographical area of the study, the sample size, the survey used to collect the data, the use of self-reported data, and the low number of reported instances of plagiarism. The research took place at a single university in the

southeastern part of the United States. This may not be an accurate reflection of data that would be collected in other areas of the country. The research may have also been limited by the sample. A survey was distributed to approximately 5,000 undergraduate students through their university email accounts. A total of 575 students completed the survey. However, there is no guarantee that the 575 respondents represented the intended 5,000 undergraduate students invited to participate, or the remaining population of undergraduate students enrolled at the university where the research took place. Analyzing data on such a small sample provided a snapshot of how student enrollment might influence committing acts of plagiarism, but might not provide enough to make generalizations across all undergraduate college students.

Another limitation was in the design and use of the survey. The survey used in this research took questions from McCabe’s Academic Integrity Survey and modified them to specifically ask for acts of intentional and unintentional plagiarism. McCabe’s survey had been established as reliable based upon research done in 1990, 1993, 1995, 2012, 2015, and 2016 (Ford, 2015; McCabe & Trevino, 1996; Raynor, 2016; Robertson, 2008; Stone et al., 2012). It has also been used to research academic integrity for over 25 years and on over 200 campuses (Bealle, 2014). However, in only using specific questions from the survey and modifying them to fit the research, the reliability of the instrument could come into question. Also, the questions regarding the commission of acts of plagiarism also only allowed for “yes” and “no” responses. It did not allow for respondents to provide a number or range of acts of plagiarism. So, a student

who may have committed one act of plagiarism carried the same weight as a student who committed several acts of plagiarism. Using a Likert Scale would have allowed for the

collection of more specific and detailed data. Respondents would be able to provide a specific range of incidents of plagiarism. Instead of “no” representing zero incidents and “yes”

representing any and all numbers greater than zero, respondents could provide an answer within a range of choices.

Another limitation falls with the data for this research. The data relied on self-reporting information for both the dependent and independent variables. Self-reported data is limited by the honesty and understanding of the respondent and may influence the validity of any

generalizations or conclusions. Data collected through self-reported data must be taken at face- value and cannot be independently verified (Brutus, Aguinis & Wassmer, 2013).

A final limitation was in the data collected. There were such a few instances of reported plagiarism. Since instances of intentional and unintentional plagiarism were so rare, it made differences in rates between traditional and non-traditional undergraduate students difficult to identify.

Recommendations for Future Research

The identified limitations of this research, along with some of the findings of the

research, support the need of further research in the area of plagiarism. Additional research with greater sample sizes in other geographical areas of the country could allow for greater

generalizations on the commission of plagiarism. Also, altering the survey questions to utilize a Likert Scale will produce more specific data on the amount of intentional and unintentional plagiarism occurring among traditional and non-traditional undergraduate college students.

Although the data analyzed did not show a statistically significant difference in acts of plagiarism between traditional and non-traditional college students, there does appear to be a difference between committing intentional plagiarism and unintentional plagiarism among undergraduate students. Further research focusing intentional and unintentional plagiarism could be of great value to administrators in developing strategies to better inform undergraduate

students in the rules of writing and properly referencing their work. Conducting the same research examining intentional and unintentional plagiarism among high school students could effectively show if plagiarism is being adequately addressed and taught in high school to best prepare graduates for undergraduate courses.

Another research approach that could provide valuable results would be to see how faculty understands the difference between intentional and unintentional plagiarism. According to one report, roughly 41% of college faculty in the United States are adjunct instructors

(Brueng, 2014). Yet, an article in Forbes magazine states that nearly 75% of faculty at

American colleges and universities are adjunct (Edmonds, 2015). This is a significant increase from the 30% of adjunct faculty in 1975 (Edmonds, 2015). Adjunct faculty are contract

employees (Kuther, 2015). They are hired on a class by class basis with no guaranteed work beyond the current semester (Kuther, 2015). Many adjuncts have full-time jobs in the field they are teaching in and the greatest value is that they can bring the “real world” of their profession into the classroom (Kuther, 2015). However, they may not have the same academic

understanding as full-time faculty. They might not put in the same time to understand and enforce the rules of appropriate scholarly research and academic writing. In fact, colleges and universities in general may not distinguish between intentional and unintentional plagiarism and enforce them equally. Developing a better understanding of intentional and unintentional

plagiarism by both student and faculty can lay the groundwork for creating more effective strategies in reducing the offenses and properly addressing incidences of plagiarism.

REFERENCES

Adams, J. & Corbett, A. (2010). Experiences of traditional and non-traditional college students. A quantitative study of experiences, motivations and expectations among undergraduate students. University of New Hampshire.

Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance (2012). Pathways to success: Integrating learning with life and work to increase national college completion. Washington DC. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/acsfa/ptsreport2.pdf

Agnew, R. (1985). Social control theory and delinquency: A longitudinal test. Criminology, 23(1), 47-61. Retrieved from Social%20Control%20Theory%20and%20Delinquency.pdf Agnew, R. (2001). Building on the foundation of general strain theory: Specifying the types of

strain most likely to lead to crime and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(4), 319-361.

Anderman, E. (2015). Students cheat for good grades. Why not make the classroom about learning and not testing? The Conversation. Retrieved from http://theconversation.com /students-cheat-for-good-grades-why-not-make-the-classroom-about-learning-and-not- testing-39556

Anderman, E., Cupp, P., & Lane, D. (2010). Impulsivity and academic cheating. The Journal of Education, 78, 135-150. doi:10.1080/00220970903224636

Appiah, M. (2016). The Evil That Men Do in Academics: Understanding Plagiarism and its Extenuating Circumstances. British Journal of Education, 4(36), 56-67.

Arizona State University (2015). The impact of academic integrity violations. Advising and Academic Services. Retrieved from https://clas.asu.edu/current-students/whats-problem- academic-integrity-violations

Arneklev, B., Elis, L., & Medlicott, S. (2006). Testing the general theory of crime: Comparing the effects of “imprudent behavior” and an attitudinal indicator of “low self-control”. Western Criminology Review, 7(3), 41-55.

Arnold, R., Martin, B. N., Jinks, M., & Bigby, L. (2007). Is there a relationship between honor codes and academic dishonesty? Journal of College and Character, 8, 1-20.

Awdry, R. & Sarre, R. (2013). An investigation into plagiarism motivations and prevention techniques: Can they be appropriately aligned? International Journal of Educational Integrity, 9(2), 35-49.

Bailey, J. (2008). The Biden plagiarism scandal. Plagiarism Today. Retrieved from https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/08/26/the-biden-plagiarism-scandal/

Bailey, J. (2013). The two types of plagiarism detection tools. Plagiarism Today. Retrieved from https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2013/09/19/two-types-plagiarism-detection-tools/ Bailey, J. (2014). Is plagiarism a strict liability issue? Plagiarism Today. Retrieved from

https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2014/04/22/plagiarism-strict-liability-issue/

Baird, J. (1980). Current trends in college cheating. Psychology in the Schools 17(4), 515-522. Baker, R., Berry, P., & Thornton, B. (2008). Student attitudes on academic integrity violations.

Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 5(1), 5-14. Retrieved from

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch _SearchValue_0=EJ886654&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno= EJ886654 Barnett, C. & Dalton, J. (1981). Why college students cheat. Journal of College Students

Bealle, P. (2014). Academic Integrity Surveys: Summary of Results. Presented by the College Academic Integrity Committee to the College Academic Standards Committee. Suffolk County Community College.

Beasley, E. (2014). Students reported for cheating explain what they think would have stopped them. Ethics & Behavior, 24(3), 229-252. Retrieved from

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10508422.2013.845533?journalCode=hebh 20

Beauchamp, A. & Murdock, T. (2009). Cheating. The Gale Group, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/article/cheating/#B

Bell, S. (2012). Nontraditional students are the new majority. Library Journal. Retrieved from http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2012/03/opinion/steven-bell/nontraditional-students-are-the- new-majority-from-the-bell-tower/#_

Bernardi, R., Metzger, R., Bruno, R., Hoogkamp, M., Reyes, L., & Barnaby, G. (2004). Examining the decision process of students’ cheating behavior: An empirical study. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(4), 397-414. Retrieved from http://www.jstor. org/ stable/25075205

Bird, K. (2014). Online vs. Traditional Education: The Answer You Never Expected. Rasmussen College. Retrieved from http://www.rasmussen.edu/student-

life/blogs/college-life/online-vs-traditional-education-answer-never-expected/ Blackburn, M. (2013). Why college students cheat. Johns Hopkins University Gazette.

Retrieved from http://hub.jhu.edu/gazette/2013/january/cheating-in-school-no-easy- answers/

Boehm, P., Justice, M.. & Weeks, S. (Spring 2009). Promoting academic integrity in higher education. The Community College Enterprise, 45-61.

Bogdan, R. (2012). Our Unknown Enemy: Mob Mentality. Retrieved from

https://bqsuvt.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/our-unknown-enemy-mob-mentality/ Bora, C. (2103). Consequences of plagiarism and its penalties. Bazzle. Retrieved from

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/consequences-of-plagiarism-penalties-for-